A Critical Guide to Desire Utilitarianism

This is the first post in a two part series that is a critical introduction to desire utilitarianism. It is theory of justice created by Alonzo Fyfe with a cult following on the internet. This first post is a sympathetic introduction and part 2 is a refutation. The general outline of this post draws heavily from this post by Alonzo Fyfe.


One: A Desire Is a Reason for Action

The main appeal of desire utilitarianism (or desirism), is that it is more hard-headed than other ethical theories. Christian ethics are based on the idea that God exists. Of course atheists reject that belief (see Reasonable Faith for rigorous arguments in favor of the existence of God). There is no reason to be moral if God does not exist. Most secular theories of morality suffer from the same flaws. Utilitarianism is based on the idea that maximizing happiness is good. But where is the evidence in favor of the proposition 'maximizing happiness is good'? There is none. There is no reason to be a utilitarian if the truth of 'maximizing happiness is good' cannot be proven.

By contrast, there are reasons to act that really does exist: desires. If Sam desires to be a millionaire then Sam has a reason to make a million dollars. If Sam desires chocolate cake then Sam has a reason to eat cake. Of course, we care about moral propositions. If Sam desires not to be raped then Sam has a rational reason to want laws against rape, and to make his community scorn and ostracize those with the desire to rape.

Note that we have not made any points that even the most hard-headed skeptic would disagree with. As Luke points out in his eBook, desires really do exist and they really are a reason for action. Bracketing the debate about the existence of God, desirism has a firmer foundation that other ethical theories.

Two: Desires are About States of Affairs in the World

Desires cannot be fulfilled through wire-heading or Robert Nozick’s experience machine (a Matrix-like device that can make people feel or experience anything possible). Here is why. The proposition P is ‘the poor in Calcutta, India are fed’. Mother Theresa desires that P is true. That desire can only be fulfilled if the poor in Calcutta are actually fed. Doing something funky to Mother Theresa’s brain will not actually make P become true.


Three: Malleable Desires

Desire utilitarianism only focuses on malleable desires – desires that can be changed. The desirist Luke gives this example in his eBook:

when we evaluate desires, we can only evaluate malleable desires - desires that can be changed. There is no point in saying the human desire for water is good or bad, since that desire cannot be changed. To say that I “ought to not desire water,” implies that I can “not desire water,” which is false.

Four: Good and Bad Desires

Good desires tend to fulfill the desires of others. Bad desires tend to thwart the desires of others. Desirists do not put it this way but I think it helps to use the jargon of economics. Good desires are the result of non-zero sum cooperation between members of the group. Everyone is better off (everyone has their desires fulfilled). Bad desires are cases where one person benefits at the expense of the group (e.g. rape, theft, and murder). You can explain an awful lot of morality in these terms.

Five: Punishment and Condemnation of Bad Desire

So rape and murder are bad. But this leads to a really tough challenge. A desire is reason for action. A rapist has a reason to commit rape. So now matter how desirists choose their definitions, the fact remains that rape is rational for someone who desires to commit rape. Alonzo Fyfe considers this objection in his post about The Hateful Craig Problem. Suppose Craig hates everyone and wants to harm them. Why should Craig set aside his hateful desires and act morally? Desirists are trapped. They champion what is supposed to be a hard-headed theory of ethics - a theory that only deals with things that actually exist. Well, Hateful Craig actually has a desire to hurt other people. Thus desire utilitarianism says that doing evil is rational. Or does it? Alonzo Fyfe has an escape. The rest of us can change Hateful Craig's desires with punishment and condemnation.

reason tells me not to use reason to get Craig to refrain from thwarting the desires of others. Instead, reason tells us that we can use threats to thwart Craig’s other desires as a way of modifying his behavior. We can go to Hateful Craig and say, “If we find you thwarting the desires of others (in particular ways), we will act so as to thwart these other desires you have. We will take away your money (through fines), we will take away your freedom (through imprisonment), and we may even take away your life. You may not have a desire to fulfill the desires of others. However, we – those others whose desires you do not care about – have reasons to set up institutions to make it the case that fulfilling the desires you do have is best accomplished in ways that do not thwart the desires of others too much.”

Notice that desire utilitarianism leads to laws against rape, murder, torture, and abusing children. Moreover, it does so without appeal to God. It also does so without having to proof a questionable proposition like 'maximizing happiness is good'. You don’t have to be Mother Theresa to desire laws against torturing children.

Desire Utilitarianism is The Pursuit of Self-Interest

This introduction may still be a little confusing. A more intuitive way to understand desire utilitarianism is to switch from the language of desires to the language of self-interest. Note that self-interest does not preclude other-regarding preferences ("desires"). Self-interest is simply defined to be the fulfillment of desires (the satisfaction of preferences. It doesn't matter what those desires are. It could be the desire to help the poor, the desire to torture children, or the desire to make a billion dollars. Either way, it is in your self-interest to have those desires fulfilled. With that in mind, here is desire utilitarianism in the language of self-interest.

"People have a rational reason to promote their own self-interest. In a superficial sense it may be in your self-interest to murder and steal in order to get ahead. But there is nothing to stop others from murdering you. So in a deeper sense the best way to promote your self-interest is to form a society with laws against murder and theft. The lesson is clear: the pursuit of self-interest provides a rational basis for "thou shall not murder" and "thou shall not steal". You do not need God to be good."

Using the language of self-interest makes it easier to understand why desire utilitarianism does not need God or invisible metaphysical entities to provide a rational basis for laws against murder and rape. Or does it? Desire utilitarianism suffers from all the same flaws as all ethical theories based on self-interest. This is called Justice as Mutual Advantage and it is based on Nash solutions to bargaining problems. It can lead to horrific acts of oppression if one of the parties has a large enough thread advantage. So how desirists get around the problem? By implicitly creating a second theory, one that is about things that do not exist in the world. Read about that in the second post in the series.